>If you're interested, Judith Curry offers up a nicely balanced view of the paper and the responses.
>
>http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/30/spencer-braswells-new-paper/
>
>>>>>NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
>>>>
>>>>Did you read the paper? I saw nowhere where it made any such statement. Their conclusion is simply that "atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations" - i.e. there is no way to determine which, if either, interpretation is correct.
>>>
>>>http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf
>>>
>>>Under Figure 3: One of the most obvious conclusions from Figure 3 is that the satellite observations and climate models display markedly different time-dependent behaviors in their temperature versus radiation variations, especially over the oceans (Figure 3(b)) which are of great interest in climate change studies due to their inherently long time scales of variability.
>>>
>>>From Section 3 : The effect of radiative (N) versus non-radiative (S) forcing on the lagged regression coefficients can be demonstrated by a simple model based upon Equation (1). This helps to explain the difference between the satellite-measured versus climate model signatures in Figure 3.
>>>...
>>>Significantly, the pure radiative forcing curve is most similar to the behavior seen in the coupled climate model output shown in Figure 3, indicating the dominating presence of internal radiative forcing in those models.
>>>
>>>After Figure 4: Finally, a mixture of 70% radiative and 30% non-radiative forcing (solid line in Figure 3) produces lag regression coefficients that vary in a manner similar to the satellite data in Figure 3. This suggests that, while the temperature variations during 2000–2010 had a strong radiative forcing component, they were also influenced by more non-radiative forcing than is exhibited by the coupled climate models.
>>>...
>>>For example, no matter what feedback is specified when the simple model is only radiatively forced, the regression coefficient at zero time lag for a sufficiently long model simulation is always near-zero. We believe this effect has led to low biases in previously diagnosed feedback parameters from satellite data.
>>>
>>>From the Discussions & Conclusions : Yet, as seen in Figure 2, we are still faced with a rather large discrepancy in the time-lagged regression coefficients between the radiative signatures displayed by the real climate system in satellite data versus the climate models. While this discrepancy is nominally in the direction of lower climate sensitivity of the real climate system, there are a variety of parameters other than feedback affecting the lag regression statistics which make accurate feedback diagnosis difficult. These include the amount of non-radiative versus radiative forcing, how periodic the temperature and radiative balance variations are, the depth of the mixed layer, etc., all of which preclude any quantitative estimate of how large the feedback difference is. More recent work which attempts to minimize non-feedback influences [14] might well provide more accurate feedback estimates than previous studies.
>>>
>>
>>I've no quarrel whatsoever with the paper itself - just the rather risible exaggeration of the findings by the author of the article. The referenced press release by the university gives a much more balanced view. And from that:
>>
>>“There are simply too many variables to reliably gauge the right number for that,” Spencer said. “The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”
>>
>>
>>>>>When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.
>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
>>>>>
>>>>>I know, I know, the models are garbage, nothing new, yawn! ;)

Just three months until October. Be sure to get a flu shot. :-)